> > That there is a pornography project would be empirical evidence to the > contrary. That a random page load can load pages with CBT images, genital > piercings, or ejaculate leaking from or flowing over various body parts is > also problematic. > > Well, strictly speaking that isn't pornography - because the intent behind the images is not to arouse, but to inform.
I realise that is being pedantic in definition - but it is important, because if an image on an article is genuinely "pornography" in the strictest sense, then it should be removed as un-encyclopaedic :) All of the images that might be problematic should have educational validity. Tom _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
